Travellers use lack of plan as leverage - Berkshire

From Newbury Today

TRAVELLERS are using West Berkshire Council’s current lack of a site allocation plan as ammunition in planning applications.

“Bullish” agents, buoyed by a recent council humiliation at the hands of a planning inspector, are using the situation as leverage.

A current application for a Travellers’ site on land to the north west of Furze Hill in Hermitage states: “There is both a backlog of unmet need and a newly arising need. There is no provision for new sites in the Development Plan and no local policy to direct provision.”

The suggestion is that such a lack must weigh in any application’s favour, given Government pressure on local authorities to provide sites.

Back in March, 2011, West Berkshire Council announced that the provision of pitches would be considered in its Site Allocation and Delivery Development Plan Document which would be published at an unspecified date in the future.

Nearly three years later, the council’s website currently states: “We are commencing work on the…document which will contain detailed land use proposals.”

And this week, a spokesman for the council, Keith Ulyatt, said the plan could take another three years to complete.

He said: “Following the lengthy process that saw the Local Plan adopted, the council is now working on the Site Allocation and Delivery Plan which should identify specific sites for residential development. That is due for completion within a maximum of 36 months.”

In a recent, succcessful appeal by Traveller Boyside Biddle over a site at Beenham, the inspector warned: “Until then the council will have no mechanism in place for the planned provision of Gypsy sites to meet the need.”

In November last year, members of the Eastern Area Planning Committee defied their officers’ advice and rejected Mr Biddle’s proposals.

Mr Biddle’s agent, Hugh Jackson, of Green Planning Solutions, had taunted councillors at the meeting, branding them “startled rabbits” and adding: “Your enthusiasm for making the taxpayer pick up a big bill is exemplary.”

Earlier he had warned: “I strongly recommend you follow the advice of your planning officers to avoid a costly appeal…our success rate on appeal is over 90 per cent.”

HM Planning Inspector Susan Heywood awarded costs to the applicant and blasted councillors’ “unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense.”

She castigated councillors for ignoring their officers’ “clear advice” and concluded: “I find little to show that the council took a balanced view.”

This week Graham Pask (Con, Bucklebury), who chaired the fateful meeting, defended the decision, which was carried unanimously.

He said: “I have to say I was surprised at this planning inspector’s ruling. I don’t accept our original decision, based on the evidence and the concerns of local people, was flawed.”

Mr Pask also said he did not believe that the current lack of a site allocation plan had given Travellers and their agents an advantage and that each application could still be decided on its individual merits.

He added: “We are under an obligation to provide sites for Travellers but, let’s not beat about the bush, it’s a very sensitive issue and we need to consider it very carefully. This takes time.

“Of course agents are going to say that (it’s a factor in their favour), especially if they are bullish after a victory, but the fact is we need lengthy consideration to make sure we get it right.”